3 ms·

But the difficulty is that the traditional centralized provider of identity is the state, and they are the arbiter of identity because they have power. Being th

But the difficulty is that the traditional centralized provider of identity is the state, and they are the arbiter of identity because they have power. Being the state in power is why they decide anyone's identity. Declaring your own identity does not change the power dynamic.

sowbug 8y ago
That's a good point, and I hope nobody is taking the position in this thread that someone has legal rights just because a digital signature matched. Unless the legal body grants that privilege, the match has no meaning. A decentralized solution removes the question who maintains a centralized database. That's important because, as you say, the answer to that question has always been the state. Which means it's never really been a question. If you're cool with the government owning your identity -- and truly having the power to erase your entire existence, so they're not denying you any rights because there is no "you" -- then it doesn't matter. But for some people, it might matter to be able to point to something other than the mirror and say "I exist, and not just because I say I do. This matters because [this entity] is taking actions that are inconsistent with my existence and implied rights." It's a small step, but it's one that opens up options that don't exist today.
- nrclark 8y ago
  A decentralized solution still needs to be hosted by _somebody_. Where is it expected to live? On the PCs of Rohingya refugees?
  - sowbug 8y ago
    I don't know. Maybe on a Raspberry Pi running on your bookshelf and the bookshelves of 1,000 more people around the world. We wouldn't have that choice if it were centralized.
    - GenericsMotors 8y ago
      And when you've got this network of RPis running, the Myanmar government simply says "Nope we don't recognize those individuals as citizens. But thanks for compiling a convenient persona non grata list for us!"

sowbug 8y ago

That's a good point, and I hope nobody is taking the position in this thread that someone has legal rights just because a digital signature matched. Unless the legal body grants that privilege, the match has no meaning. A decentralized solution removes the question who maintains a centralized database. That's important because, as you say, the answer to that question has always been the state. Which means it's never really been a question. If you're cool with the government owning your identity -- and truly having the power to erase your entire existence, so they're not denying you any rights because there is no "you" -- then it doesn't matter. But for some people, it might matter to be able to point to something other than the mirror and say "I exist, and not just because I say I do. This matters because [this entity] is taking actions that are inconsistent with my existence and implied rights." It's a small step, but it's one that opens up options that don't exist today.

nrclark 8y ago
A decentralized solution still needs to be hosted by _somebody_. Where is it expected to live? On the PCs of Rohingya refugees?
- sowbug 8y ago
  I don't know. Maybe on a Raspberry Pi running on your bookshelf and the bookshelves of 1,000 more people around the world. We wouldn't have that choice if it were centralized.
  - GenericsMotors 8y ago
    And when you've got this network of RPis running, the Myanmar government simply says "Nope we don't recognize those individuals as citizens. But thanks for compiling a convenient persona non grata list for us!"